Stars risk popularity for politics

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
For show-business stars, the adoration of the public
provides far more than ego boosts; it is the very basis of their success and
survival, the ultimate source of privilege and power. Why, then, do so many
Hollywood celebrities recklessly place this popularity at risk with edgy, outspoken,
confrontational political posturing that's sure to insult some substantial segment of
their fans?

This question arises in connection with the militant
anti-war activism by dozens of entertainment titans who have rushed forward to
denounce a popular president and his plans to take military action against Iraq.

At a film festival in Madrid, Oscar-winning actress
Jessica Lange declared that she "hates" President Bush, while Eric Roberts, star
of a struggling new TV series (appropriately called Less Than Perfect), told
Fox News that he considers the president "fascist" and a co-conspirator (with
Osama bin Laden) in deliberately "wrecking the American economy."

Meanwhile, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Gore Vidal,
Oliver Stone and many others signed a public
"Statement of Conscience" drafted by a group called
Not in Our Name, which has promised "to resist the
injustices done by our government" and pledged
"alliance with those who have come under attack."
Sean Penn spent $56,000 for a nearly full-page ad in
The Washington Post to run his "open letter" warning
of the Bush "legacy of shame and horror." And Barbra
Streisand embarrassed even some of her political allies
with the strident partisanship of her Democratic
fundraising concert in Hollywood, during which she
slammed the president for "the arrogance of wanting
unlimited power."

Of course, many Americans agree with Streisand and her friends, but most of the
country emphatically does not. President Bush maintains high approval ratings,
and Tuesday's election underscored the closely divided politics of the moment.
Professional politicians, like Hollywood celebrities, must sustain broad-based
popularity in order to maintain their careers, and overwhelming majorities in
Congress - including most Senate Democrats - supported Bush's resolution
authorizing war against Iraq.

AHEAD OF THE POLITICIANS

Despite a potent reputation for pandering, for shamelessly catering to any public
whim, the leaders of Tinseltown show greater willingness to take unpopular and
polarizing political stands than partisan leaders in Washington.

Once upon a time, celebrities attempted to avoid controversy. Even those who
campaigned for political candidates (Jimmy Stewart for Republicans; his friend,
Henry Fonda, for Democrats) made a point of avoiding insult or offense to the
adherents of the opposition party. That's certainly the tack taken by the most
visible Republican in show business today, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is not
only married to a Kennedy (Maria Shriver), but also worked prominently with
Democrats on his California ballot initiative to fund after-school programs.

BRAVE OR JUST FOOLISH?

Leaders of the Hollywood left may console themselves with the thought that their
previous partisanship did no lasting damage to their careers, but a few
exceptions to that rule ought to give them pause. Oliver Stone and Alec Baldwin,
for instance, have definitely lost some of the clout and popularity they once
enjoyed, thanks to a series of personal embarrassments - including, arguably,
their strident and predictable political radicalism. The recent ratings collapse for
NBC's acclaimed program, The West Wing, so obviously coincides with the
edgy, insistent, anti-war activism of the show's star, Martin Sheen, that letter
writers to USA TODAY and other ordinary Americans have hastened to point
out the connection.

The war on terrorism remains such an emotional subject that people may prove
less forgiving toward those who position themselves outside the mainstream on
that issue. Concerning the decision to speak out against the president's Iraq
policy, public-relations expert R.J. Garis declared: "As a publicist, I would
advise my clients to stay away from the topic."

The fact that so many significant figures in show business ignore this sage advice
demonstrates both their idealism and their isolation. For the sake of its own
profits, the entertainment industry ought to reflect the diversity of American
outlooks, yet it persists in a flamboyant tilt toward left-wing activism.

The same Hollywood elite that takes obvious pride in its more unpopular,
arguably courageous positions also relishes the reassuring knowledge that the
"great unwashed" don't cast movies or TV shows. Industry insiders do, and they
remain passionately and disproportionately liberal. A controversial political stand
may upset some ordinary moviegoers, but it generally will earn enhanced respect
from the producers and directors who control careers.

On a wide range of political and cultural issues, those in the insular,
self-referential world of Hollywood care more about the respect of their peers
than the opinions of the public. The studios continue to turn out a preponderance
of R-rated movies, despite abundant evidence that family-friendly fare performs
better at the box office; the edgy, adults-only titles tend to win more critical and
industry praise.

HOLLYWOOD BACK PATTING

No one observing the activism of leading entertainers should ever ape the trite
and tired line that "all they care about is money." Clearly, today's pop-culture
potentates identify with a range of policies and priorities that can confer no
conceivable economic benefit, and demonstrate a much greater eagerness to
preach to the nation than to reflect its varied values.

The encouragement and validation these celebrities receive from one another
help generate the determination to disregard even passionate protestations from
the general populace. Although Streisand still sings about "people who need
people," the people she needs most aren't the faceless fans, but her colleagues
within the Hollywood bubble who already share her views.